March 4, 2003

contemplation/paint

Posted by Arcane Gazebo at March 4, 2003 2:35 PM Every time I start to become convinced that war on Iraq is justified, George W. Bush manages to change my mind. Imagine if Saddam Hussein had sent fighters to intercept an American spy plane. I have a feeling such an action would move up the invasion timetable, to say the least. But when North Korea does it, "The president continues to believe that this matter can be handled through diplomacy."

As many others have pointed out, the reasons cited for invading Iraq also apply to North Korea. They have weapons of mass destruction (and are demonstrably on their way to mass production of nukes), the ruler is an evil dictator who gassed his own people, and so on. Furthermore they're tossing rockets into the Sea of Japan and intercepting our planes.

Now, I understand the problems with going to war against North Korea: Chinese involvement and the vulnerability of South Korea and so forth. I understand why diplomacy is a much better option than war in this situation. But it strikes me as inconsistent when Bush continues to appeal to diplomacy on this issue, and pushes for war on the less dangerous and volatile situation in Iraq. Just because diplomacy is hard doesn't mean we should go to war when it's more convenient. War should be the last resort.
Tags:

Comments

Sadly, I'm afraid that much of the change in tactics has to do with carrying on Daddy's mission. At this rate, the only way that'll happen is if he gets a second term, which I hope doesn't happen. I'd be interested to see how the history books look back on this situation in twenty years or so.

I don't entirely buy the "Daddy's unfinished business" line, because while it might explain Bush's own reasons it doesn't go very far in explaining the views of his hawkish advisors. I think a bigger reason these guys are all pushing for invasion is strategic; i.e. they believe an American controlled and/or democratic Iraq would be hugely beneficial for our position in the Middle East. The most optimistic line suggests that there would be a domino effect of democracy catching on elsewhere in the region. While this would certainly be nice, it's not obvious that this would be the outcome, and it's not clear that it would be worth the anti-American sentiment the war will generate both in the Middle East and elsewhere, not to mention the strain it's already putting on our alliances. Moreover it's definitely not clear that such an outcome justifies war (in a moral sense as opposed to a strategic sense). Those who like to argue this justification in self-defense (against terror) terms, I point again to North Korea.